P1. (premise) If there is no objective good or bad, then good or bad is based on subjective thought
P2. (premise) There is no objective good or bad (Seneca)
C. (conclusion) Therefore, good or bad is based on subjective thought
P2. (premise) There is no objective good or bad (Seneca)
C. (conclusion) Therefore, good or bad is based on subjective thought
But I think the conclusion is false. I have argued many times that moral good or bad is not subjective, which means it is objective:
P1. (premise) If there is no objective good or bad, then good or bad is based on subjective thought
P2. (premise) It is not true that good or bad is based on subjective thought
C. (conclusion) Therefore, there is objective good or bad.
P2. (premise) It is not true that good or bad is based on subjective thought
C. (conclusion) Therefore, there is objective good or bad.
So, I wonder what Seneca meant. How can I reconcile my belief that there is objective good and bad with his claim that "thinking makes it so"? Perhaps he was merely talking about the feelings we have towards certain events. An event may be objectively good or bad, but my feeling about the event is subjective. It is up to me to respond to the event. So I believe he meant that whether we feel angry or upset about an event is the result of our thinking about things.
-- Socrates.
** Update:
To answer a question that was posed "How do I know that the world is divided into objective and subjective things", I answer that I do not know. I know very little. But here I am analyzing the relativist's claim that there is no objective good and that good and bad are subjective. I am testing my beliefs against this claim. My beliefs are not yet knowledge.
- S